dence very far. One coherent sentence is worth a batallion of scattered words. We have willingly, even gladly, given great prominence in the previous numbers of this Journal to this promised cipher story; but we must say that our patience is sorely tried by Mr. Donnelly's repeated delays, and by the provoking way in which he now demands our faith, without satisfying our sight, under the penalty of being branded as 'absolutely steeped to the lips in ignorance and prejudice.' We have every desire to be convinced: all our bias is in favor of the cipher, and of Mr. Donnelly's alleged discovery. But we cannot he landed in such a large conclusion without evidence of a direct character. If Mr. Donnelly is kind enough to give us an avant gout of his intended book before it is published, we look for some such fragment of the complete structure as we can perfectly verify and understand. In the part of his paper which deals with the cipher we cannot find anything of this kind.

The remainder of the article is devoted to a re-statement of the Baconian argument; which is put in a striking and convincing way, with a generous acknowledgment of the labors of others, especially Mrs. Pott, in the same field. For this we are thankful: but any one who knows the subject could have done all this. What we want from Mr. Donnelly is the cipher, the whole cipher, and nothing but the cipher. Until the book appears, we must withhold both criticism and oertification,―Journal of the Bacon Society, August, pp. 157, 158.

WHAT DR. ROLFE THINKS OF THE DONNELLY CLAIM.-In a recent number of the Literary World (Shakespeariana department, October 29th), Dr. Rolfe emphatically answers a correspondent, who reports the assertion of a prominent Wisconsin bookseller to the effect that nearly all the eminent Shakespeare scholars of late years had accepted or were inclined to accept the Baconian authorship.' Dr. Rolfe's and the late Mr. Hudson's names were especially mentioned as belonging in this category. The ghost of the Cambridge divine certainly would do what a good ghost might to trouble the peace of that bookseller, if the serene wraith of him could know such misrepresentation possible. And as for Dr. Rolfe, one cannot wonder that he proceeds to put himself on record as if he had never done so

before, and after giving the facts of the case pretty clearly, both as to Hudson and himself, and stating that not a single Shakespeare scholar or critic of any note anywhere in the world accepts or is inclined to accept' the Baconian theory, he takes the occasion to reply as follows to another Western correspondent who asks his opinion of the Donnelly cipher :

:

When the book is published, 'the great cryptogram' can be intelligently criticised-that is if the discoverer gives us a full description of it. For ourself, we do not expect that it will bear the ordeal of criticism; and for Bacon's sake we hope it will not. That he should have written the plays is simply impossible, and we do not like to think that he could have entered into a conspiracy with the editors and printers of the folio of 1623 to rob the dead dramatist of his laurels. The 'meanest of mankind' was perhaps not incapable of doing this, but we shall nevertheless be sorry to have Mr. Donnelly convict him of it.

THE OMNIA PER OMNIA' A PLAGIARISM.-Says Bacon in that famous first chapter of the sixth book of the De Augmentis :—

But, to prevent all suspicion, we shall here annex a cipher (or invention) of our own, which we devised in Paris in our youth; which still seems to me worthy of preservation.

Now, in point of fact, this very cipher, which Bacon claimed as original with himself, is found described in two books, the first written by Porta, and first printed in 1563 (when Bacon was three years old) and reprinted in Strasbourg in 1606, and the second written by de Vigeuere and published in Paris in 1587. It is certainly amusing to know that the Baconian rebus-mongers are using a plagiarized cipher to steal away Shakespeare's reputation.

A. D. VINTON in the November North American Review. NEW YORK SHAKESPEARE SOCIETY.-At the next meeting of this Society (Dec. 29th, not Nov. 24th, as heretofore announced) the Donnelly cipher is to be discussed. Mr. Frey will read a paper upon it; and the president will read a letter from Judge Holmes, who, we understand, says in substance that, while he is not disposed to assert that anything is impossible, he himself sees no drift to the various cipher theories except to make the Baconian hypothesis ridiculous. He wishes, however, to suspend judgment until Donnelly's book

comes out.

INDEX.

ABBREVIATIONS:-A, Leading Article; D, Drama; M, Miscellany; O. C., Open Court;
P, Poetry; R, Reviews; Sc, School of S.; So, Societies.

ABBOTT, F. M., Stratford Club of Bacon Society Journal, 162, 165, 555-6,
Concord, N. H., 327.

Actors, S.'s, Halliwell-Phillipps, R., Bibliography of, Wyman, 143, 160,

Outlines, R., 42.

S.'s Actors, R., 194.

Hamlet, 105.

Age, M.; 47.-

I, iv, 15; 485. →

III, i, 79; 319.

Barrett, W., as, D., 29.

Examination, Thom, R.,

Comédie Française, D., 420.-

381.

French Criticisms, D., 79.
Growth of, Reed, R., 163.
— Irving, H., Reading, D., 185.`
Legend of, Hansen, R., 138.

-

Lincoln and Whitman on, M.,
534.

HARTMANN, C. S., Hamlet at Comé-
die Française, 420.

Helena, 364.

Henderson, W., Who Wrote S.?, R.,
431, 554.

HENION, A. E., Biblical Allusions in
Richard II, Á., 149.

Hermione, 355; M. Anderson, as D.,

283.

Heroines of S., pictures of, M., 143.
Henry IV, Study of, SIMPSON, SC.,

212.

Index to S., O'Connor, R., 331.

Indexes, S., R., 197.

Ingleby, C. M., So., 26.

Irving, H., Hamlet, D., 185.

- edition of S., 525.

John, King, I, i, 196; 209.

- II, i, 350; 259.

- IV, i1i, 87; 259.

CORSON On, A., 49.

Study of, THOM, Sc., 19, 64.
JOHNSON, C. F., S. as a Text Book,
A., 487.

Julius Caesar, 535, etc., 541.

LAFFAN, R. S. DE C., Old Guild Hall,
P., 286.

POTT, Lathrop, G. P., Cipher in 'Stop,
Careless Youthe', M., 566.